Spenlinhauer v. Spencer Press, Inc. ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                              _________________________



          No. 96-1684



                           IN RE:  ROBERT J. SPENLINHAUER,



                                       Debtor.



                              _________________________



                                ROBERT J. SPENLINHAUER,



                                      Appellant,



                                          v.



                                 SPENCER PRESS, INC.,



                                      Appellee.



                              _________________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                              _________________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                              _________________________



               Christopher  B. Branson,  with  whom E.  Stephen Murray  and
_______________________              __________________

          Murray, Plumb & Murray were on brief, for appellant.
______________________

               Stephen  G. Morrell,  with whom  Eaton, Peabody,  Bradford &
___________________              ___________________________

          Veague, P.A. was  on brief,  for Joseph V.  O'Donnell, Chapter  7
____________

          trustee.

               U. Charles Remmel, II, with  whom Kelly, Remmel &  Zimmerman
_____________________             __________________________

          was on brief, for appellee Spencer Press, Inc.



                              _________________________





                                  November 14, 1996

                              _________________________





























                    Per Curiam.  After careful review of the briefs and the
Per Curiam.
__________



          record  in this  matter, and  after consideration  of the  points



          raised  by counsel at oral  argument, we see  no fairly debatable



          question.   The  debtor sought  exclusion of the  res of  the JRS
___



          Realty Trust (or, at least, his beneficial interest therein) from



          the  bankruptcy estate  under 11  U.S.C.   541(c)(2)  (1994); the



          trustee in bankruptcy obviously had standing to resist exclusion;



          and the trustee timely voiced an objection to exclusion.  More to



          the point, the self-settled JRS Realty Trust, of which the debtor



          is  both  a settlor  and  a beneficiary,  contains  a spendthrift



          clause which is vulnerable under  Maine law and which, therefore,



          cannot  support  the  claim  for  exclusion.    Accordingly,  the



          bankruptcy court did not  err in denying the debtor's  request to



          withhold his interest in the trust from the bankruptcy estate.



                    We have repeatedly stated    and today reaffirm    that



          we will  not write at length  to explicate points that  have been



          made  perfectly clear by lower courts.  Here, both the bankruptcy



          court, In re Spenlinhauer, 182 B.R. 361 (Bankr. D. Me. 1995), and
__________________



          the district court, Spenlinhauer v. Spencer Press, Inc., 195 B.R.
____________    ___________________



          543 (D. Me. 1996), have written comprehensive opinions explaining



          why  the debtor's quest for exclusion  of his beneficial interest



          in the JRS Realty  Trust from the bankruptcy estate is  doomed to



          failure.  Thus, we need go no further, but, rather, we  summarily



          affirm the judgment on the basis of the lower courts' opinions.







                    Affirmed.
________





                                          2